I find it odd that Sammi Jo is still talking about a 'security drill" in London on 7/7. which she hopes you will think involves shadowy people out in the tube network that was brutally bombed sometime later, rather than knowing the truth that Peter Power's company was conducting a paper exercise in a room in London for his private clients about a hypothetical terrorist attack. She stated that she wouldn't be surprised that is was an false flag operation, within a few hours of it occurring, while the injured were still trapped, and bodies were yet to be recovered, with no evidence whatsoever. A moderator removed her posts and my angry response.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

"Jihad Watch"? And the theory is that Kerry cut a deal with the Saudis to "keep them happy" whereby we'll deport rather than prosecute a terrorist who murdered three people, including a child, and maimed and injured many more?

And this is something that "an official in the agency that conduction (sic) the deportation" is willing to talk about?

Doesn't that all strike you as a tad insane? I mean, if this information is being casually leaked on Hannity, how does anyone in the administration expect to keep it quiet? And if they don't keep it quiet, how does Obama expect to avoid being impeached? Or assassinated?

I realize the bar for credulity in certain circles has been set pretty low, especially when it plays into notions of administrative fecklessness and reckless accommodation, and but come on.

Lots of extraneous information there Hands. Considering there's no election coming up I'll assume an internet video isn't to blame. At this point in time what difference does it make anyway? The system worked!

"Faisal Shahzad

The fourth child of a wealthy, well-educated family, Shahzad is married and the father of two young children, both born in the United States. Since 1997 he had lived mostly in the United States, attending college on extended visas, and earning an undergraduate degree and MBA at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. He worked for two major companies as a financial analyst before quitting his job. He and his American-born wife separated in 2009; she returned with their children to her parents.

When asked by the judge, "Didn't you swear allegiance to this country?" Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen, replied, "I sweared, but I didn't mean it."Shahzad, wearing a white prayer cap, smiled and said "Allahu Akbar" after hearing his sentence. He said he would "sacrifice a thousand lives for Allah." He predicted that "War with Muslims has just begun," and that "the defeat of the US is imminent, inshallah [God willing]."

Photos of Boston bombing suspects sent to Infowars by Anonymous that caused a huge stir on the Internet yesterday after being posted by the Drudge Report have been confirmed by police to be the two men sought for questioning, but the authorities and the media remain mute on other photos which show what are likely to be employees of a private security firm carrying large black backpacks at the scene of the explosion.

“In the photos being distributed by law-enforcement officials among themselves, one of the men is carrying a blue duffel bag. The other is wearing a black backpack in the first photo, taken at 10:53 a.m., but it is not visible in the second, taken at 12:30 p.m,” reports the New York Post.

The photo is identical to an image we posted yesterday on Infowars.com showing two middle eastern looking individuals, one with a white baseball cap and another wearing a blue jacket.

“The attached photos are being circulated in an attempt to identify the individuals highlighted therein,” said an e-mail obtained by The Post. “Feel free to pass this around to any of your fellow agents elsewhere.”

However, there has been no mention whatsoever in official law enforcement or media circles of separate images taken from the finish line of the Boston Marathon which show one Caucasian and another middle eastern looking individual wearing identical clothing, carrying large black backpacks and speaking into cellphones moments after the bombing.

As Infowars first highlighted yesterday and as Anthony Gucciardi subsequently confirmed, the two individuals are likely to be employees of Craft International, a Blackwater-style private military/security firm.

Another image shows what could be the same Caucasian man or a third identically dressed individual with a black object in his hand after the blast.

The two or three men’s behavior and demeanor in the photos clearly suggests that they are engaged in some kind of drill, which would correlate with eyewitness reports from marathon runners that bomb drills were taking place at the start of the event and that participants were told to remain calm.

Police have denied that any such drills took place or that any prior intelligence indicated an attack.

The men appear to be wearing Navy Seal attire which is also the same standard issue Craft International uniform used by the private security firm.

The media seemed primed to blame the the attacks on white right-wing extremists, but as soon as the photos of the middle eastern looking individuals emerged, reports that an arrest had been made were retracted and the FBI cancelled a planned press conference.

The whole official narrative behind the Boston bombings is now in complete disarray as a result of these photos being released yesterday on the Internet.

There seems to be no rational explanation for why two employees of a private security firm would be on the scene of the blasts carrying large black backpacks similar to those used in the actual attack unless they were involved in some kind of drill that paralleled the real bombing.

The FBI should be attempting to uncover the identity of these individuals as an urgent priority and the mainstream media should be all over the story, but instead we have heard nothing but silence.

In addition, following an unscheduled meeting between President Barack Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal yesterday, it was subsequently revealed that one of the early suspects in the bombing, Saudi national Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, was being deported from the United States on “national security” grounds.

“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens,” terrorism expert Steve Emerson told Fox News last night. “You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”

I find it odd that Sammi Jo is still talking about a 'security drill" in London on 7/7. which she hopes you will think involves shadowy people out in the tube network that was brutally bombed sometime later, rather than knowing the truth that Peter Power's company was conducting a paper exercise in a room in London for his private clients about a hypothetical terrorist attack. She stated that she wouldn't be surprised that is was an false flag operation, within a few hours of it occurring, while the injured were still trapped, and bodies were yet to be recovered, with no evidence whatsoever. A moderator removed her posts and my angry response.

The "on paper drill involving 1000 staff" explanation by Peter Power was issued in a Channel 4 new item some 10 days after the bombing, and is a revision from his original statement of a "security exercise". Everything about the 7/7 official explanation stinks. Peter Power definitely has a history, including being the deputy forward controller at the Libyan People's Bureau siege at which Officer Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. This episode helped trigger Thatcher's decision to allow the U.S. to bomb Libya in 1986 from USAF bases in Britain. The most likely reality behind the 1984 Libyan Embassy seige (in which Peter Power played a part) can be seen here in this 80 minute documentary, an exhaustively researched piece which hands the British Government it's ass in a small brown paper bag. In other words, this event was likely to have been a false flag incident, alongside 7/7.

IMHO Peter Power is more than likely a pawn than a player.

Edited by sammi jo - 4/18/13 at 12:07pm

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Citing Alex Jones (certifiable) and the NY Post (sorry track record of anonymously sourced scoops which prove to be false, including claiming someone was in custody within hours of the bombing and putting the number of dead at 12) doesn't seem very helpful.

Internet forensics that include notations such as "brown, alone, not watching" seems seriously unhelpful, in that the only difference between that individual and dozens, if not hundreds of others in various videos and photographs is "brown."

And..... the Post has run an update on their blaring front page story headlined "BAGMEN" noting that the two circled guys are not suspects. Really white of them. And they've defended their original story by pointing out that they "never labeled the circled men as suspects."

Well, hopefully no one recognized those dudes and decided to take matters into their own hands. But I guess a little vigilantism in the name of unfocused rage is no vice?

Citing Alex Jones (certifiable) and the NY Post (sorry track record of anonymously sourced scoops which prove to be false, including claiming someone was in custody within hours of the bombing and putting the number of dead at 12) doesn't seem very helpful.

Internet forensics that include notations such as "brown, alone, not watching" seems seriously unhelpful, in that the only difference between that individual and dozens, if not hundreds of others in various videos and photographs is "brown."

And..... the Post has run an update on their blaring front page story headlined "BAGMEN" noting that the two circled guys are not suspects. Really white of them. And they've defended their original story by pointing out that they "never labeled the circled men as suspects."

Well, hopefully no one recognized those dudes and decided to take matters into their own hands. But I guess a little vigilantism in the name of unfocused rage is no vice?

All you've done here is try to discredit the sources. Is the information incorrect?

What information? Pictures with dark skinned people circled? As I mentioned, the NY Post has issued a correction to the big "BAGMEN" front page story that featured that picture, admitting that the men singled out were not suspects. The NY Post has done a pretty thorough job of discrediting itself, have you not noticed?

As far as Alex Jones and his theories, again, what information? Pictures of guys who may be private security. So? And what does that have to do with the (now exonerated) dark skinned guys in the first picture? Are they all in together? I though Jones' thing was that this was a false flag operation that will soon enough be blamed on the Tea Party. So the middle eastern looking guys are what, patsies? But the government has said they're not suspects, so.....

By the way, were you anywhere near Waco recently? You sound like a plant to me. Like a terrorist plant. I don't have any evidence, but give me a few minutes and I can show you some maps and posting histories with notations and kerning analysis.

What information? Pictures with dark skinned people circled? As I mentioned, the NY Post has issued a correction to the big "BAGMEN" front page story that featured that picture, admitting that the men singled out were not suspects. The NY Post has done a pretty thorough job of discrediting itself, have you not noticed?

As far as Alex Jones and his theories, again, what information? Pictures of guys who may be private security. So? And what does that have to do with the (now exonerated) dark skinned guys in the first picture? Are they all in together? I though Jones' thing was that this was a false flag operation that will soon enough be blamed on the Tea Party. So the middle eastern looking guys are what, patsies? But the government has said they're not suspects, so.....

By the way, were you anywhere near Waco recently? You sound like a plant to me. Like a terrorist plant. I don't have any evidence, but give me a few minutes and I can show you some maps and posting histories with notations and kerning analysis.

I know. That's what the question mark is for. There is so much variation in skin color, and the camera and video settings can make things challenging. Then you have people who are tanned and others who rarely go into the sun and are quite pale. Regarding age, some people look far younger/older than they truly are. I have worked with security video before and know just how "clear" it is... and isn't.

My comment came more from the recent media efforts at presenting stuff. We were told that there was a Saudi suspect; then not. I'm surprised watching CNN this morning that, after the vids come out, they aren't as sure as they were just yesterday when they suggested "dark-skinned". In fact they haven't said anything yet.

Hopefully more images of the guys will come out soon. People may have these guys in photos or better quality video.

Reading comments on Time, I think, people were actually complaining that the images weren't better quality. It's as if they were looking for the "cleaned up, enhanced video" from a TV police show. The storage space for HQ video is enormous and many people and companies pass on the cost.

Edited by Bergermeister - 4/18/13 at 4:35pm

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

I know. That's what the question mark is for. There is so much variation in skin color. Then you have people who are tanned and others who rarely go into the sun and are quite pale. And I have worked with security video before and know just how "clear" it is... and isn't.

My comment came more from the recent media efforts at presenting stuff. I'm surprised watching CNN this morning that, after the vids come out, they aren't as sure as they were just yesterday when they suggested "dark-skinned". In fact they haven't said anything yet.

Hopefully more images of the guys will come out soon. People may have these guys in photos or better quality video.

I was shocked that CNN was castigated for using the description of "dark skinned". If that description fits then use it. From these images I'd say they were light tan to white. It's relevant because it helps people to find a likely cause. Blonde haired light skinned would more likely mean a right wing terrorist and tanned or dark skinned more likely a muslim terrorist. People want to know what happened and why. From what I've read online there are plenty of people who have crossed over a very important line and it's gross beyond words at a time like this. Gwen should be fired.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I was shocked that CNN was castigated for using the description of "dark skinned". If that description fits then use it. From these images I'd say they were light tan to white. It's relevant because it helps people to find a likely cause. Blonde haired light skinned would more likely mean a right wing terrorist and tanned or dark skinned more likely a muslim terrorist. People want to know what happened and why. From what I've read online there are plenty of people who have crossed over a very important line and it's gross beyond words at a time like this. Gwen should be fired.

I'm not the one who would allow "whites only" signs. You would. I have nothing to apologise for. You do.

I'm not the one pre-judging people based on their skin color. You are.

Yes, it's true, I do not believe I have the right to force others to conform to my personal values even when I find their actions and beliefs offensive. I don't apologize for holding that position. You, on the other hand, ought to be ashamed for wanting to force people to conform to your values.

Furthermore your subtle attempt to make it seem like I would put up a "Whites Only" sign is a little sad. BTW...I'd also say that a black person would have the right to put up a "Blacks Only" sign or gay person to put up a "Gays Only" sign as well. You forgot to mention that.

Yes, I did. It's gibberish. There was no law enforcement "narrative" that was thrown into "disarray" by pictures of private security personal. There was a lot of wild speculation and repeated claims of "suspects" based on "sources" that didn't pan out. Claiming that the blog/cable news/internet appetite for quick, unvetted, sensationalistic "scoops" is somehow an artifact of a sketchy law enforcement scheme is just grotesque, although I guess for the clinical paranoia set business as usual.

I'm also puzzled by why the presence of private security people at crowded public event would be considered mysterious or suspicious, if indeed the people are even that, which we don't know (logos on hats and similar dress are not slam dunk evidence of anything in particular, at least not in non-crazy land).

And so anyway the kid circled and trumpeted as a suspect in the earlier picture turns out to be a 17 year high school student who went to the police when he saw himself on the front page of the NY Post labeled as a "bagman." Good work!

So I guess you're just going to ignore that half your post was almost immediately discredited and still come on all aggrieved? Is that you've had any sense of shame surgically excised, or you just figure everything is a bottomless hole of conspiracy and "facts" are just part of their game?

I'm not the one pre-judging people based on their skin color. You are.

Yes, it's true, I do not believe I have the right to force others to conform to my personal values even when I find their actions and beliefs offensive. I don't apologize for holding that position. You, on the other hand, ought to be ashamed for wanting to force people to conform to your values.

I want people to be free of being discriminated against. You don't think that's their right, I do.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I'm not the one who would allow "whites only" signs. You would. I have nothing to apologise for. You do.

I'm not the one pre-judging people based on their skin color. You are.

Yes, it's true, I do not believe I have the right to force others to conform to my personal values even when I find their actions and beliefs offensive. I don't apologize for holding that position. You, on the other hand, ought to be ashamed for wanting to force people to conform to your values.

Your position is not very convincing. You appear to be arguing that no actions or opinions should be resisted unless they, themselves, constitute opposing the actions or opinions of others. And yet the latter is, by definition, a subset of the former, rendering the argument circular. And here, specifically, you seem to be saying that opposing racist attitudes is worse than the racism itself. Is that really what you mean?

So how how can you justify allowing banning people based on their race? That denies their right as being equal. You're basically saying everyone is equal but feel free to treat people as if they're not. That leads to real harm to people. What harm does it do to someone to say they can't ban someone based on race? Not very f'ing much.

I think everyone is equal innately.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You appear to be arguing that no actions or opinions should be resisted unless they, themselves, constitute opposing the actions or opinions of others. And yet the latter is, by definition, a subset of the former, rendering the argument circular. And here, specifically, you seem to be saying that opposing racist attitudes is worse than the racism itself. Is that really what you mean?

I'm saying people have a right of discrimination (on whatever basis they chose.) And that I (or you) don't have any right to forcibly prevent someone from exercising that right.

I may (and do in most cases) personally disagree with some kinds of discrimination (based on skin color or gender for example.) However, I have no right to impose those values onto others.

I would love to see discrimination based on things like race or gender (or whatnot) disappear entirely.

So how how can you justify allowing banning people based on their race? That denies their right as being equal.

You're confused. Saying that someone has the right to discriminate and that we have no right to forcibly stop the exercise of that right does not at all mean that all people are created equal. Go back to logic class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

You're basically saying everyone is equal but feel free to treat people as if they're not.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

That leads to real harm to people.

In what way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I think everyone is equal innately.

I'm not sure what you mean by that statement exactly. Perhaps you can clarify.

You appear to be arguing that no actions or opinions should be resisted unless they, themselves, constitute opposing the actions or opinions of others. And yet the latter is, by definition, a subset of the former, rendering the argument circular. And here, specifically, you seem to be saying that opposing racist attitudes is worse than the racism itself. Is that really what you mean?

I'm saying people have a right of discrimination (on whatever basis they chose.) And that I (or you) don't have any right to forcibly prevent someone from exercising that right.

I may (and do in most cases) personally disagree with some kinds of discrimination (based on skin color or gender for example.) However, I have no right to impose those values onto others.

I would love to see discrimination based on things like race or gender (or whatnot) disappear entirely.

OK - that's clearly put. You don't condone "whites only" signs, you simply don't believe that anyone has the right to impose restrictions on them. So is it not inconsistent with that view for you to demand that Hands apologize for racial profiling? Does that not constitute you imposing your values on him?

You're confused. Saying that someone has the right to discriminate and that we have no right to forcibly stop the exercise of that right does not at all mean that all people are created equal. Go back to logic class.

MJ, I'll just leave this conversation with you because you're not making any sense, and, as is common of late, you're being rude. Chow for now.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.